The
invasion of Ukraine is a brutal reminder to us that it is high time that we
radically revise our policies regarding our External Affairs and our defence preparations. Though wars are going on in
many other places as in Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Myanmar, etc. this
particular war is an occasion to draw many lessons for us, as we are living,
today in a globalised world and we are no more a poor country.
1. The
wars hereafter are the most visible and open in terms of all damage and
destruction that is taking place and the plight of the civilians is shown to
the whole world as in a film. The states cannot make fake claims and false
propaganda, except internally to some extent. This war is being vividly and dramatically
recorded by the visual media, step by step, thanks to digital technologies,
much more than during the 2nd world war. If any international
tribunal wants, it would be easy to prove the crimes against humanity committed
and also to estimate the damage and loss caused, for the purpose of estimating
eventual compensation. Whatever might be the outcome, whether there would be,
meanwhile, a ‘coup d'état’ in Russia or there would be a truce, it is certain
that Mr. Vladimir Putin would be judged for war crimes and the Russian people
would have to compensate for the damage caused to the Ukrainian people.
2.
It can already be asserted that none would think of starting or supporting a
war hereafter, even for a just cause in the liberal democracies. The current
generation of youth is beginning to entertain anti-war sentiments, as happened
in the seventies in the context of the Vietnam war. Global social media,
uncontrolled by any state, would reveal the reality. In future, only
authoritarian states would declare wars. The youth across the world who have
already low opinion on the vocation of the political leaders, would not buy the
official statements issued by the state machinery.
3.
Europe failed us once again, as war took place on the European soil, where already
two World Wars were fought. Nevertheless, the strong desire among the European
people to unite themselves in Union as people and not anymore as states and
regions is reconfirmed, once more. Only Russian and Great Britain states are
still unprepared to join in such an effort. It is once again proved that
military security of each state is not possible and we should hereafter think
of collective security.
4. When humanitarian issues are involved or when there is an imminent danger of nuclear explosion and radiation in any country, the world cannot ignore them as strictly matters of internal concern of a state, or a strictly bilateral dispute between two states.
The failure of the UN bodies only confirms that it should succeed next time to intervene to reconcile or arbitrate or to use force, if necessary to fulfil their mission to protect the people who are the authors of the UN Charter. No superpower state can replace it. The UNO’s efforts for peace -keeping and peace-making should be backed and accompanied by autonomous military power and power to administer certain areas directly under Trusteeship in cooperation with its various Specialised Agencies and banks.
5. War
against war is going to be old-fashioned thinking hereafter. It is possible now
in this intimately and increasingly inter-dependent world to retaliate against
a military power by weakening it economically. Pacific non-cooperation in
economic, trade and financial matters by stopping all exchanges of goods and
services is proving to be adequate as retaliation. There is every chance of
this Gandhian approach being adopted universally in future not only by the
strong but also by the small and weak states, provided there is an
international consensus and cooperation. The losses incurred due to such
non-cooperation with the evil, even for a prolonged period, in any case, are
much less than the loss of lives, suffering, physical and mental trauma of any
military effort. This ‘economic war’ strategy is being set up as a model by
liberal democracies. States like China which aspire to be big power should
learn that arms build-up and demonstration of force is not the only solution to
solve their pending disputes with other political entities. The ‘apparatchiks’
of the Chinese Communist Party, who adopted export-oriented economic growth would
be forced to revise their approach towards conflicts, particularly with their
neighbours across the seas and across the borders.
6. We
notice that a democratic country defends itself much better than a totalitarian
or any state with ‘authoritarian governance, and sustains its resistance for a
prolonged period, even though it might have been surprised initially. The
mighty Russian army instead of performing a blitzkrieg in a few hours or days,
is now dragging its tanks in the Ukrainian mud for weeks, unable to advance
towards their primary target, as claimed initially. It is not easy anymore, for
an organised army to fight and capture the human communities in their natural
environment, whether it is the villages in the mountains or the urban
agglomerations. This confirms what we have already seen in Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Peru, Columbia, etc.
7.
Defence preparedness in a democratic country should not anymore be a state
secret, closely guarded by a few bureaucrats, diplomats and generals. The
people should be able to watch and question the reality behind the state declarations
beyond the official statistics of financial allotments in the annual budget,
without it being considered as a seditious act. Despite having a long legacy
since Peter, The Great and the Prussian traditions and being a ‘defender’ of
the erstwhile Socialist World, the Russian forces revealed many hidden
deficiencies. Less of hierarchy in the ranks and more of democracy in
functioning are being considered to be the strong points of the Chinese and
Israeli forces. Passionate participation for a just cause makes one a better
soldier than the professional qualities of obedience to military protocols.
Civilians of various professions should be able to participate in the defence
preparations along with military professionals, especially in the era of
electronic warfare.
8.
Foreign policy in the past is defined and applied as a game of Balance of Power
among the ‘sovereign’ states, which is being played only by the adept
professional diplomats, outside the knowledge of the people, and even without
involving many political representatives. This corps of diplomats is costing each
country a lot of foreign exchange.
On the contrary, it is time now to name our 'diplomats' as goodwill ambassadors
or ‘negotiators’ to promote people-to-people economic and cultural cooperation.
It is to be the mission of not only the consulates and embassies but also of
all civil societies to promote better understanding and cooperative attitude
among all residents who, by sheer accidents of history find themselves
separated by physical boundaries. There is a lesson to
learn from the warmth with which the Ukrainian refugees in crisis are being
received by the neighbouring families. Further, we can radically
reduce the cost of maintaining our diplomatic establishments abroad in this
electronic age and replace many of them by our Indian diaspora.
Our dependence to such an extent upon Russia and for such a long time is a
surprise for many Indians. Both states have struck a cold political deal to
accommodate each other’s military strategies for seven decades, with no corresponding
growth in people to people relations.
9.
India’s claim to have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and spending
much money and much energy campaigning for it, without renouncing the veto
power, proved to be a premature aspiration. Depending upon a single
authoritarian state for decades for many military spare parts and equipment and
having not trusted our own countrymen to produce and update the defence
arsenal, we cannot pretend to be an honest broker for international peace.
‘Atmanirbhar’ would not come any soon by announcing new rules and regulations,
but only by prompting private investments, internal research, development and
manufacture of what would be needed for future electronic wars.
10.
Now, there exists a global public opinion and humanist ethos, which is
expressing itself in different ways. The presence and actions of national and
international civil society humanist institutions, movements and organisations like the Red Cross, Green Peace
and Human Rights Watch, Peace & justice cannot be ignored or silenced by
any state however mighty it might be. All states, including India should accept
to work with them pro-actively. Human beings are no more under absolute and
unquestioned authority of any state. Further, International brigades of
voluntary soldiers for a just cause are likely to be formed more spontaneously,
than in the past when it happened very rarely as during the Spanish war against
the regime of General Franco. We are seeing their beneficial presence in
Ukraine. India would gain more goodwill in the international arena by allowing
the abundant high-quality human capital of its social activists, scientists,
academicians, artists, athletes, etc. to participate freely in international
exchanges.
0 Comments